She's the sister of the future Queen, a woman who is featured in the newspaper and magazines every single day. She is wife to the second in line to the throne, Catherine is not a minor member of the royal family. Could you please give us a source which confirms that she was given public police protection on more than one occasion?

I am not sure is Pippa does indeed recieve public funded protection, but if she does it shouldn't be on the grounds of being the sister of the future Queen. By that reckoning, Camilla's siblings and maybe even children and grandchildren should get it too.

Pippa's book launch venue was apparently "vetted" by SO14 (royal police branch) I imagine this was due to the possiblilty that any member of the royal family showed up for instance Beatrice and Eugenie were reportedly invited. I can find no mention of her receiving royal protection officer's at anytime she has been known to us.

That is something you will have to put up with, forever, or until she becomes Queen Catherine. Camilla is still Camilla Parker Bowles, Diana will always be Princess Diana and Sophie is often referred to as simply Sophie Rhys Jones. The press don't understand the titles and how they work.

It's not just the press, really. Queen Mary (George V's consort) was always Mary of Teck, Queen Alexandra was Alexandra of Denmark, William III was William of Orange. By the same logic, it shouldn't be wrong to say Kate Middleton or Camilla Shand (though not Camilla Parker Bowles) or Sophie Rhys Jones.

I know Clarence House belongs to the country (on an unrelated note, of the Prince of Wales' homes, he actually technically only owns Highgrove, as Birkhall, though considered "private" is actually part of Balmoral, and Llwynywermod and Tamarissk are owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, not the Prince of Wales himself).

Actually the Duchy of Cornwall owns Highgrove too. It sounds like you are a very well read individual and I'd like to point out a book you really might enjoy. Have you read Charles' "Harmony"? I really was pleasantly surprised at how elegant the book is aesthetically and how in depth Harmony reflects the Prince of Wales thoughts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by democratnmonocole

I know the Prince of Wales is the hardest working royal, though the Princess Royal's Wikipedia page (and the Duke of Edinburgh's actually) say that she is the hardest working royal (I've tried to alter them several times but some WikiNazi keeps coming along, undoing it and protecting the page). I know the amount of work that the Earl and Countess of Wessex do that is unnoticed. The Duchess of Cambridge steps out to get her hair done and there's a five-minute piece on "TODAY". The Earl and Countess of Wessex successfully started the Commonwealth tour for the Diamond Jubliee (and had a likely exhausting time) and the papers say nothing because they barely know the Earl and Countess exist (which Edward and Sophie actually prefer when it suits them).

That's one of the disadvantages of the instant global community and I do think the American tabloids and news blips tend to focus on the more glamorous aspects of the royal family rather than what they stand for and what they're trying to accomplish. For example, when William and Kate did the Jubilee Tour of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, what made the most news were the photos taken in France. Unfortunately its this kind of coverage that leads people that don't know much about the BRF to think of them like any other celebrities plastered all over the media and in our face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by democratnmonocole

IBut it's not like they are policemen or firefighters or school teachers. One of my favorite quotes of the Duke of Edinburgh (because it shows what a cantankerous sod and amusing old boy he is), is when he was touring a factory with the Queen and said "Well it doesn't look as though much work goes on in this factory", which had been closed so he could ceremonially open it! It's making small talk, meeting people around the country and Commonwealth, touring rest homes, schools, universities, reviewing military parades, writing letters, attending dinners, theater openings, etc. Any one can do this. It doesn't require special talent that only the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duchess of Cambridge has to pull a cord to unveil a plaque.

Oh you just have to love the unexpected "gaffes" of Philip! I think my favorite one was at some outdoor function and he was looking at a woman in a rather stunning red dress. His quip was "I'd probably be arrested if I unzipped that!" I do think though that even though a royal is there to pull a cord and reveal a plaque or declare something open or pose with children in a hospital ward which seems easy enough, I believe that for the most part, the said royal is personally involved with the organization behind the scenes and what the public sees them doing is actually a small part of their involvement.

I'd like to point out that you've mentioned firefighters, policemen and school teachers. I'd classify William's SAR career along with those three professions. I do admire the man for choosing to put his time and his life at risk in serving his country by doing Search and Rescue in Wales. It is definitely not a "playing soldier" job. Harry may be part of the armed forces that are keeping freedom safe for all of us but William is part of the armed forces that help preserve our lives should they be in danger. Both commendable services to the Crown and country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by democratnmonocole

IIf you believe that, I sincerely hope you get a grip. I would carry out three engagements a day, six days a week, for forty-eight weeks if I was in their position. Why? Because listening to someone drone on and on really isn't hard. And being given millions of pounds of taxpayer money is.

But when would you ever have time to breathe or even read a book or say goodnight to your children and tuck them in? You'd be SuperRoyal for sure! I supposed if things were changed and the taxpayers did pay out millions of pounds for the position of royal, there'd be a lot of applicants to do that schedule. Trouble is, you would be too busy to think about spending any of it.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

I would carry out three engagements a day, six days a week, for forty-eight weeks if I was in their position. Why? Because listening to someone drone on and on really isn't hard. And being given millions of pounds of taxpayer money is.

Sure you would
They're not given millions of pounds of taxpayers money. But frankly, if the taxpayer isn't moaning why should you?

It's not just the press, really. Queen Mary (George V's consort) was always Mary of Teck, Queen Alexandra was Alexandra of Denmark, William III was William of Orange. By the same logic, it shouldn't be wrong to say Kate Middleton or Camilla Shand (though not Camilla Parker Bowles) or Sophie Rhys Jones.

The one time it was correct to call Kate Catherine Elizabeth Middleton was reporting on the charges filed in France over the pictures taken in an invasion of privacy. According to French law, women filing suit even if married, use their maiden names.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

It's not just the press, really. Queen Mary (George V's consort) was always Mary of Teck, Queen Alexandra was Alexandra of Denmark, William III was William of Orange. By the same logic, it shouldn't be wrong to say Kate Middleton or Camilla Shand (though not Camilla Parker Bowles) or Sophie Rhys Jones.

This is an interesting, and sensible IMO, way to look at it. Names are just a way of describing people and identifying them. Kate is Kate Middleton as much as she is the Duchess of Cambridge and Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor. I would even argue that it is reasonable to call Camilla, Camilla Parker Bowles since she was known as Parker Bowles for nearly as long as she was known as Shand, though Shand works for me too.

I would be delighted to explain the apparent contradiction. First of all they are and that is the entire point of calling myself democratNmonocole (I wanted to write and but they wouldn't let me). When I mean democrat I mean Democrat as in the Democratic Party of the United States. Monocole because as I wrote, I became fascinated by the Royal Family (starting with King George VI) about seven years ago. I was having stomach problems which have since become chronic and read the Wikipedia article on His late Majesty. I found that he was like me a shy, stammering chronically ill young man. This led to my reading more and more about the Royal Family. While I'm not sure if I can prove my level of knowledge to your satisification, I am very sure that I know more about the modern British Royal Family than 9 out of 10 people on an American street corner (I can assure you as well this is not conceit). I gnash my teeth every time I hear an American anchor call the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "Prince William and Kate Middleton". Catherine no longer is Kate Middleton. She is Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, or Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor (according to all evidence). I intially became fascinated because I was trying to figure out how these people (who in their habits, education, intellect, etc. are very ordinary) have become so adultered by the masses that every appearance of them, for no matter what reason, was chronicled in minute detail. I also discovered that Her Most Gracious Majesty (which is her formal style) is theorized to have the same Briggs-Myers personality type as I (Guardian-Inspector). Interestingly according to her admission her favorite (and first) American President, Harry Truman (and a favorite of mine as well) also shares this same personality type with Her Majesty and I. Over the years I have collected and read books, articles, etc. and since the Royal Wedding, my admiration for the Queen has only deepened. It is very interesting to me that the admittingly republican argument that I may have made in my previous entry is so vehmently attacked on this forum (not unexpected I might add--it's the ROYAL Forum for a good reason). Yet of the circles I'm in, in the United States, this argument is treated as fact. I'm the only member of my family to get up before 5:30 the morning of the Royal Wedding. At the supposedly Diamond Jubliee celebration I attended this summer, the Queen and the idea of royalty was mocked and derided to such a degree that I left early, deeply upset and angered. (I was perhaps most angered that only I stopped what I was doing and stood to attention at the playing of the National Anthem). You have no idea the amount of derision I get from family members and friends for following and studying the royals as much as I do (which I will admit is principally for relaxation and guilty pleasure, such as others would read Danielle Steel novels). As for William and Catherine, I have no admiration for them because they have yet to actually do much and prove that they are up to being senior royals (their tours of Canada and the Far East aside). I loathe Diana, Princess of Wales for having insisted that her children be treated normally because I believe this has given William a complex of being able to use his royal status when it suits him and ditch it when it does not. He claims he wants to be treated like any other Search and Rescue pilot, yet no other Search and Rescue pilot has armed police guarding them around the clock. No other Search and Rescue pilot is allowed to take the liberties he is. No other Search and Rescue pilot can go to Keningston Palace or ring up the Queen for tea. He's doing (and allowed to be doing) what I call pretending to be normal and it irritates me to no end. He's not normal and never can be. He's His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, son of the Prince of Wales, grandson of Her Majesty the Queen. He's 30 years old. The Queen was reigning for nearly five years by that age. To me he's acted like he's had Peter Pan syndrome, not wanting to grow up. And frankly despite what people say about the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen wanting to still be very active and involved, they are 91 and 86. My 90 year-old grandmother spends most nights in front of the television, not carrying out 3 or 4 engagements a day. To me, since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are adults and have by my view, had three or four years after university to muck around doing as they please, it's time for them to become full-time royals. According to what I've read in multiple sources, there are MORE organizations wanting royal patronage, not less, there are MORE requests for royal visits, not less, 80% of the public want to see much more of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, yet there are fewer royals to go around. The Duke of Kent carries out far more engagements than either of them and he's just had a stroke. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester carry out more engagements than either of them combined. Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Oglivy carries out more engagements than either of them. Yet none of these people have a small legion of police protection officers (I know the Protection Squad say there is no threat, but with the advent of the Internet, ANY relative of the Queen's unfortunately can be at grave risk). If you only read the papers, there would seem to be no other royals BUT the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and yet they actually aren't doing much in the way of engagements, which according to the Queen Mother was how royals earn their keep because they can't earn a living. Even more disconcerting to me is how much attention Pippa Middleton gets, when she's only a relative of a minor member of the Royal Family (yet she evidently warranted public police protection on more than one occasion which I'm not sure she is entitled to by law).
Well anyway I hope you have a clearer idea of why I hold the admittedly contradictory views that I do.
Best regards,
DemocratnMonocole

Could I ask you to break up your posts to make them readable?

A whole page of text with no paragraphing is difficult to read. Each new idea should be in a new paragraph.

I enjoy reading other people's point of views and although I may not agree with some of them, it tests my knowledge of what I do know in order to discuss the point with what I think. I learn something new every day and thanks to Iluvbertie and correction on what's in the CC, I filled my quota for the day.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

There's a reason I call myself "DEMOCRATNMONOCOLE". I am fascinated by the Royal Family and the Queen and particularly how so many people seem to revere them. With respect, I'm especially fascinated by how sycophants like The Telegraph hold such reverence for the Royal Family that they can apparently do no wrong, especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Remember thirty years that people were saying the same thing of Charles and Diana. The dashing naval "hero" (actual heroes do things, not wear uniforms and fly unauthorized helicopter flights past Birkhall House {look it up}) and his "Fairy Tale" princess bride. The real Forces member at the time was the Prince Andrew, as now it's Prince Harry. But alas as usual, the older brother gets 90% of the attention. Read as well what was said of the Prince of Wales: "He entertained lavishly and lived a life of dissipation". That was said of the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, shortly before he became King after his mother, Queen Victoria had reigned for sixty-three years. So is said now of the Prince of Wales, with Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, etc.

Your post caught my attention because I share the peculiar combination of being an (American) Democrat and a great fan of Britain's Constitutional Monarchy. I see we share one other thing - we tend to be overly emotional about it. Otherwise, I have no criticism of royal family members without the facts at my command. I find that if you pay attention, not many people really know much about them. However, some people on this forum are extremely knowledgeable. You could learn a lot by reading what the people who take time to answer you have to say. Read through some of the past posts, too.

This is an interesting, and sensible IMO, way to look at it. Names are just a way of describing people and identifying them. Kate is Kate Middleton as much as she is the Duchess of Cambridge and Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor. I would even argue that it is reasonable to call Camilla, Camilla Parker Bowles since she was known as Parker Bowles for nearly as long as she was known as Shand, though Shand works for me too.

I've always liked Camilla Shand. For a brief time there were two Camilla Parker Bowles in the family when Andrew's brother Richard married Camilla Younger (Emma's mother), I think also in 1973. That Camilla remarried in 1976, sparing herself endless publicity. Sorry - all irrelevant to the discussion.

I've always liked Camilla Shand. For a brief time there were two Camilla Parker Bowles in the family when Andrew's brother Richard married Camilla Younger (Emma's mother), I think also in 1973. That Camilla remarried in 1976, sparing herself endless publicity. Sorry - all irrelevant to the discussion.

I can't believe Anne once dated Andrew Parker Bowles. She couldn't marry him because he is Catholic.

Monarchism is belief that political power should all be concentrated in one person that person can rule by degree or by constitutional right. A monarchist is one who supports that system of political rule regardless of whom the monarch is.

As Americans we can not be monarchists. Our country is based on an elected President,three branches of government ,checks and balance system etc. I too am a fan of the British royal family and a avid reader British history. I would call myself an Anglophile. In terms of details about the monarchy or how the government runs in the United Kingdom I defer to forum members who live there.

That being said I do agree that the present form of the monarchy is going to have to change. Under the current system the monarch can only power to his or her heir by death, abdication, or Regency . Regency implies severe mental or physical incapacity of the current monarch.

There should be a way to transfer power without setting up a situation where the monarch has to be totally physically or mentally incapacitated. There is no retirement under the current system. It's doesn't seem reasonable to expect someone to work for 60 years without a break. Also after certain age we all slow down either physically ,mentally or both, and can't be as effective as we were we were younger.
I'm sure there's some parliamentary or privy Council committee already looking into this.

I am just as sure that there is no committee looking into the idea of some sort of retirement as the Queen wouldn't consider retiring. She also knows all the committees set up as she reads all the reports and the Privy Council can only operate on her say so as they are her privy council and have sworn allegiance to her personally.

I see no reason to force someone into retirement when they consider their position a vocation, a calling and believe that God put them in that position and that only God can remove them - by death.

The system works so there is no reason to end it.

If the monarch of the day wanted to leave they could do so - it is called abdication.

As for the structure of the government - Britain has three branches - executive, legislative and judicial, it has checks and balances, it is bicameral, the cabinet is answerable to the parliament as are all parliamentary personnel such as the PM. Britain just doesn't elect their head of state but it still a working democracy where the power is vested in the people. Their parliament is even called the 'mother of parliaments' as so many of the world's parliaments can trace the majority of their structures to it (including the US - not all but the majority).

Monarchism is belief that political power should all be concentrated in one person that person can rule by degree or by constitutional right. A monarchist is one who supports that system of political rule regardless of whom the monarch is.

As Americans we can not be monarchists. Our country is based on an elected President,three branches of government ,checks and balance system etc. I too am a fan of the British royal family and a avid reader British history. I would call myself an Anglophile. In terms of details about the monarchy or how the government runs in the United Kingdom I defer to forum members who live there.

As Americans, we are guaranteed the right to be monarchists, anarchists, communists or anything else in that these words mean belief in a form of government. Unless we actively pursue an overthrow of our government, our beliefs do not preclude allegiance to the nation in which we hold citizenship. It's true that at various times in history it has been more or less life threatening to claim one of the above labels. We're all a work in progress.

I am just as sure that there is no committee looking into the idea of some sort of retirement as the Queen wouldn't consider retiring. She also knows all the committees set up as she reads all the reports and the Privy Council can only operate on her say so as they are her privy council and have sworn allegiance to her personally.

I see no reason to force someone into retirement when they consider their position a vocation, a calling and believe that God put them in that position and that only God can remove them - by death.

The system works so there is no reason to end it.

If the monarch of the day wanted to leave they could do so - it is called abdication.

As for the structure of the government - Britain has three branches - executive, legislative and judicial, it has checks and balances, it is bicameral, the cabinet is answerable to the parliament as are all parliamentary personnel such as the PM. Britain just doesn't elect their head of state but it still a working democracy where the power is vested in the people. Their parliament is even called the 'mother of parliaments' as so many of the world's parliaments can trace the majority of their structures to it (including the US - not all but the majority).

But don't you think that at some point the system has to do you guys live says that much longer than they used?